Kitchen-in-Toilet in one room Studio4Rent@$190 pw – as WAS advertised by Ray White

[props4u]

As was advertised by Ray White REA on Trademe before being removed



Serena Wan didn’t notice the unusual setup WHILE taking the photos OR WHEN advertising it?

She said – note the “we” – “We didn’t notice the function inside was not legal”

Couldn’t resist downing the tools to post this here

Read all about it here
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11268470

.

[Leftette]

I see nothing wrong with it. After a night-before out on the tiles, next morning you get a serious case of the munchies (bacon & eggs) but are equally in dire need of a dump. It's a conundrum I've faced on many an occasion. With that setup you can almost do both at the same time, as well as lean to the right and brush your teeth. For the busy executive woman in a hurry, what a God-send!

[John the builder]

this was also noted in that other thread

from that link;

An Auckland Council spokesman said the photos also suggested an additional unit had been created within the house without building consent which was a breach of the Building Act.

The council can prosecute under the act and impose a maximum fine for a breach of $200,000.



They were wrong to not have a door between wc and kitchen space (and including a basin) but this is what we are up against folks, the council can and likely is prosecuting (because they can) but only a court can impose the fine and 200k is the max for a insanitary offense. As with others in this situation; will they know how to defend themselves? and they are on a hiding to nothing for not having that partition and handbasin in the same space.but does that warrant prosecution when it is a easy fix and doesn't even need a building consent?

[RHarris]

My guess in 2 weeks it will be rented out as is

[speights boy]

The WoF proponents love articles such as this.

[John the builder]

if you are ignorant to rent this out (as this was) would you also know that a WOF was required (if they existed).

In two weeks they wikll still be arguing for council to remove the NTF because they have a second kitchen

[speights boy]

if you are ignorant to rent this out (as this was) would you also know that a WOF was required (if they existed).

The property manager would.
Once again I ask, why not hold the PM accountable for trying to let illegal properties as well as the owner ?

[John the builder]

beacuse it is not an offence to advertise a space?

in my reading of the Act it is only an offence when someone actually lives there and to the person knowingly permitting it (but ignorance is not a defense?) which is the owner? and the fine is $100000 not 200000

the offense reffered to under the article that says 200k must be where someone ignores and insanitary notice. All they had to do in this cae was provide the partition?

The couuncil will likely say it needs consent but that is arguable?

[speights boy]

beacuse it is not an offence to advertise a space?

Not an offense to profit from the rental of an illegal structure ?
Golly well should be,
Try telling the judge that if a rental car company put an unregistered unwarranted car on the road.

[John the builder]

read the article SB?


they dont seem to have built anything and certainly not a structuire and not illegal built either

someone has decided it seems to turn an oversized bathroom into a room for rent with independent facilities it neeeded the wc and vanity to be an ensuite so partition required to form the space for hygiene reasons

if the partition is the problem then address the problem

what underlies this is that the council will say (and have in that article?)."this is a separate dwelling" (yawn) and that is the same issue as in many other threads here.

It is an offense to have an unwarranted car on road, there is no offense to have an unwarranted house or room (as there is no such thing yet). People and others get killed by unsafe cars when was the last time you saw a flatmate filled by their living conditions (well ok some student flats come to mind but that is the way they are used, keep this issue in perspective. Again partition was required ...sorry now done ...ok?, now lets all move on.............
instead there is likely a council complia-naz1 sharpening the council legal guillotine for another public execution right now.

[speights boy]

You miss my point John.
You said

if you are ignorant to rent this out (as this was) would you also know that a WOF was required (if they existed).

So; now assume the time line is post WoF, and that one was required; ....as you posted.
I said

The property manager would.
Once again I ask, why not hold the PM accountable

That was my point.
The PM is the professional, they would be able to tell the owner one was required, or not.

[John the builder]

what this shows is that creating laws (WoF) doesnt solve the problem but just creates another offence.

Wjat you say could also apply to the whole dwelling do you expect the PM to be expert in code compliance as well?

Their job is to find willing tenants not be compliance experts

[speights boy]

Well, the same could be said (somewhat) post 'leaky buildings' for REAs.
The Act was changed to include that they do have obligation to disclose risk factors based on their professional market knowledge.

Back to the WoF.
They don't need to be compliance experts.
Once again; you said

if you are ignorant to rent this out (as this was) would you also know that a WOF was required (if they existed).

IF one was required, it could be as simple as a box on their rental listing form.
If it was required they get it from the owner and tick that box.
BUT, they would have to be asking the owner in the first place.......hence the owner could NOT plead ignorance.

[John the builder]

The Act was changed to include that they do have obligation to disclose risk factors.......

they dont have to disclose risk only knowledge of actual leaks

......hence the owner could NOT plead ignorance

.

owner can't plead ignorance either way?

[speights boy]

owner can't plead ignorance either way?

Precisely.
Which is why I couldn't understand you posting this.

if you are ignorant to rent this out (as this was) would you also know that a WOF was required (if they existed).